- May 6, 2022
- 2,442
- 6,308
So you're making an argument in favour of slavery and necromancy at the same time. Fantastic.You are making assumptions based on a flawed perspective presented by a celestial being who is still adapting to life on Earth. She claims they are abominations, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth simply because Eliette and M's mother believe so. The game demonstrates that the undead can, and often do, live relatively normal lives. We lack sufficient evidence to categorically condemn all forms of necromancy. Eliette is clearly depicted as flawed in her beliefs, though always well-intentioned. In fact, the first thing Maryen says to her after "usurping" her title is, "You want those purification armies back, right?",a line that hints at how those armies might seem righteous to some but fanatical to others.
As for "Makla's victims," you may be correct, but from their perspective, it’s not as simple as labeling them as tortured souls. They feel a sense of gratitude or even loyalty toward her for their continued existence. While it's a complicated and morally ambiguous situation ( asking enslaved individuals about their captor always is ) dismissing them entirely as mere victims of torture would be an oversimplification of their experience.
That means I can go and resurrect your dead family members and have them as my torture playthings. And you can do nothing about it because I also trapped their souls inside their bodies, so they are actually your relatives in undead form. And I can get you arrested and punished for trying to free them from me.
Do you even realize how absurd your argument is?
I will fully support Eliette in reinstating Purification Armies in her route, if she plans to do that in the first place.
Necromancy is a sin against life, each and every undead is an affront to God, and they all should burn in holy fire.

^Me, while writing all that.
Edit#96204: Also, your arguments reminded me of that shitty animated short, that portrayed gay people as literal rotting zombies. Ironically, it was in fact trying to argue in favour of gay people.
Last edited: